→"Radical" label: Reply Tag: Reply |
MaplesyrupSushi (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
||
Line 324: | Line 324: | ||
::::::I don't want to debate or argue with you anymore. It's a waste of time. I have made my stance very clear on this issue multiple times. Period. [[User:CrusaderForTruth2023|CrusaderForTruth2023]] ([[User talk:CrusaderForTruth2023|talk]]) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::::I don't want to debate or argue with you anymore. It's a waste of time. I have made my stance very clear on this issue multiple times. Period. [[User:CrusaderForTruth2023|CrusaderForTruth2023]] ([[User talk:CrusaderForTruth2023|talk]]) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::@[[User:ThethPunjabi|ThethPunjabi]] Do you understand that in COI/N you would have to prove that the editors you accuse of having a COI are affiliated with a political/religious/financial organization that is opposed to Amritpal? <br>because [[WP:COI]] states Conflict of interest is editing {{tq|"about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"}} and <br>[[WP:COINOTBIAS]] clearly states that {{Tq|"COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships"}} <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> [[User:Extorc|<span style="color:purple">Extorc</span>]].[[User_talk:Extorc|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</span> 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
::::@[[User:ThethPunjabi|ThethPunjabi]] Do you understand that in COI/N you would have to prove that the editors you accuse of having a COI are affiliated with a political/religious/financial organization that is opposed to Amritpal? <br>because [[WP:COI]] states Conflict of interest is editing {{tq|"about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"}} and <br>[[WP:COINOTBIAS]] clearly states that {{Tq|"COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships"}} <span style="font-family:Monospace;color:black">>>> [[User:Extorc|<span style="color:purple">Extorc</span>]].[[User_talk:Extorc|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]]</span> 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
:::::@[[User:Extorc|Extorc]] I’ve already given my case (with evidence in the form of diffs and links) yesterday regarding the COI allegations. [[User:ThethPunjabi|ThethPunjabi]] ([[User talk:ThethPunjabi|talk]]) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well I'm tired of these personal attack, now Amritpal fans don't even try to understand wiki policies. Do whatever you want you are free to complain at noticeboard of your choice [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards#List of Wikipedia's noticeboards|WP:PNBD]] [[User:Mixmon|Mixmon]] ([[User talk:Mixmon|talk]]) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
:::Well I'm tired of these personal attack, now Amritpal fans don't even try to understand wiki policies. Do whatever you want you are free to complain at noticeboard of your choice [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards#List of Wikipedia's noticeboards|WP:PNBD]] [[User:Mixmon|Mixmon]] ([[User talk:Mixmon|talk]]) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC) |
||
::::Yes, it's tiresome. I have also come to the conclusion that argument is useless. We won't allow any change to the points which are referenced by credible sources. That's it. Rest they are free to go to whichever place they want and keep complaining. |
::::Yes, it's tiresome. I have also come to the conclusion that argument is useless. We won't allow any change to the points which are referenced by credible sources. That's it. Rest they are free to go to whichever place they want and keep complaining. |
Revision as of 17:34, 23 March 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Amritpal is not a khalistani
Bhai Amritpal Singh is a activists who is on a mission to free Punjab from drugs and give Punjab there rights. Amanpreet2004 (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In his speeches, Singh often argues that the demand for Khalistan is absolutely justified. He also seems to hold considerable appeal for his followers.[1]
In another statement, he is quoted as saying, “We lost our (Sikh) empire to the British in 1849 and we are asking for that empire back.”[2]
- -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
“Sikhs have been slaves for 150 years. We have developed a slave mentality. First, we were slaves to the British, now we are slaves to the Hindus. The only way we can be totally free is when we have Sikh rule,” he said in Punjabi while addressing a gathering in Behbal Kalan village on the seventh anniversary of the Behbal Kalan ‘killings’ earlier this month.[3]
- -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
“Why is Khalistan such a bad thing?,” he said in a TV interview. “We have the right to self-determination and say we want a separate country in a peaceful manner. Why am I being threatened by my home minister for asking for my democratic right?”[4]
- -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- But I agree that the "Khalistani" label has been overblown in the recent round. Until recently, the media has been calling him a "Khalistan sympathiser". Now that the police are chasing him, it has been blown up.
- The main concern is really his tendency to armed militancy, stockpiling arms, and roaming around with armed supporters. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Punjab has highest gun possession but lowest gun crime rate in India. Government just fool people by saying not to possess arms so that they can justify their crime to the people. Most of the gun crime happen with unlicensed weapons, and their people only acquire licensed weapons. Independent hawk (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- The term Khalistani is used for anyone who supports the demand of separate state of Khalistan. That is the definition CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 13:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Punjab has highest gun possession but lowest gun crime rate in India. Government just fool people by saying not to possess arms so that they can justify their crime to the people. Most of the gun crime happen with unlicensed weapons, and their people only acquire licensed weapons. Independent hawk (talk) 11:30, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ Zoya Mateen, Arvind Chhabra, Amritpal Singh: The self-styled preacher raising fears in India's Punjab, BBC News, 28 February 2023.
- ^ Vivek Gupta, What Explains Amritpal Singh’s Mystifying Rise as the New Poster Boy of Radical Sikh Politics?, The Wire, 11 Februay 2023.
- ^ Matharu, Sonal (25 October 2022). "Fiery orator, 'Bhindranwale 2.0' — who's Amritpal Singh, new 'head' of Deep Sidhu's Waris Punjab De". The Print.
- ^ Pallavi Pundir, India Cuts Off Internet to 27 Million People to Catch One Man, VICE News, 22 March 2023.
MOS:LABEL
Now that someone has already unsuccessfully tried to make the point that use of the word Radical in the lead is contentious, allow me to point out that MOS:LABEL points out that Value-laden labels...terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.
Several sources used in this article refer to Amritpal as radical, self-styled Khalistani. Some even calling him the reappearance of a slain militant.
- 'Bhindranwale 2.0': Radical Khalistan Sympathiser Amritpal Singh
- Radical activist Amritpal Singh Sandhu stormed the Ajnala police station
- Amritpal Singh, a radical preacher
- New poster boy of Sikh radical politics in Punjab
- Radical preacher and Khalistan sympathiser
- Punjab government gave in to radical leader Amritpal Singh
Above are usage by reliable sources.
Kindly treat this section as a redirect to all the upcoming attempts to challenge the usage of the word Radical in the lead.
It is not contentious according to MOS.@Kautilya3, @Utcursch >>> Extorc.talk 07:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:Extorc, you missed the part that immediately follows what you bolded:
use in-text attribution
. If radical is indeed a value-laden term, it is not right to use it in the lede without saying who called him radical right after it. I'm not personally sure that radical is value laden, but since many including the previous IP and you agree it is, then it is best to remove it altogether. 117.194.204.34 (talk) 22:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)- If you wish, we can overload citations right after the word radical, I dont see any issue with that. AS I said, there are enough sources and we have established clearly that he IS a radical. >>> Extorc.talk 04:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- User:Extorc, "in-text" means that the attribution should be part of the main sentence, the same way the word "radical" is. See WP:INTEXT. No amount of overloading citations or attributing in footnotes can fulfill the requirement. It's irrelevant whether he "clearly is" a radical, if the term value laden, it needs to be attributed in-text.
- Wikipedia does have a habit of ignoring this guideline by labelling people they don't like (mostly right-wing people) with various labels they conjour up, writing on them with the intent to discredit them rather than fairly summarising who they are. So maybe you can get away with this too. Whatever. 117.194.204.34 (talk) 07:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Extorc, You'll have to say "IndiaTV (or whatever)" has labelled Singh as "radical". You can't call him "radical" in the lead using the voice of Wikipedia. Solblaze (talk) 13:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- If you wish, we can overload citations right after the word radical, I dont see any issue with that. AS I said, there are enough sources and we have established clearly that he IS a radical. >>> Extorc.talk 04:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Requested move 19 March 2023
– Over the past one month, Amritpal Singh has gained more popularity and media coverage than any other of the Amritpals out there.
Along side a less known NBL basketball player, a domestic football player, a dead national level long jumper and a famous musician who is actually overwhelmingly known as AP Dhillon and not Amritpal, This page's subject is by far the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, which can also be demonstrated by [consolidated pageviews].
Even if this page is not deemed PRIMARY by consensus, he must not go by the name activist because hardly any sources call him that. Something like (separatist) could be used. >>> Extorc.talk 15:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: pages with content, such as Amritpal Singh, are inelibible to be new titles in move requests unless they, too, are dispositioned. Amritpal Singh → Amritpal Singh (disambiguation) has been added to this request to satisfy that requirement. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'er there 15:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
*:Disagree He is clearly Leader and Acivist of Waris Punjab De and it well sourced. Princhest01 (talk) 07:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC) Struck away double vote>>> Extorc.talk 16:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Capitals00 (talk) 16:56, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support as per nomination. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree But why not move the page to "Amritpal Singh Sandhu"? There will be no conflicts then. CalicoMo (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- WP:COMMONNAME suggests we rename to Amritpal Singh because this is the widespread name used in WP:RS. >>> Extorc.talk 17:46, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support. Looks like a good solution. (Sandhu is rarely used in news reports. Moeover adding the "Sandhu" surname doesn't solve the problem, because we would still need to redirect "Amritpal Singh" to it.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:15, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support per Kautilya3 →
αѵίɾαʍ7 ([ʆεt'ς tαʆƘ🇮🇳])← 04:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support per nomination. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support rename this page as Amritpal Singh Sandhu, the word activist is misleading. Any person threatening the unity of a federal state is a separatist. He may have been an activist, but his own interviews suggest otherwise Msolution (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sandhu is not WP:COMMONNAME >>> Extorc.talk 10:09, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree Even if you think he is a separatist, he is still categorized as activist. Let's not base it on POV. Based on the facts, the correct title could be Amritpal Singh (Waris Punjab De). Princhest01 (talk) 07:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support with a change Most RS called him Khalistani Radical Sepratist BlackOrchidd (talk) 05:36, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- We're not going to use an inflammatory title sure to piss a lot of people off. —Jéské Couriano (No further replies will be forthcoming.) 03:13, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support He is not an activist at the very least he is an controversial figure. Hence he shouldn't be referred to as an activist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DataCrusade1999 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC) DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Even if he is controversial, he is still considered an activist or leader of Waris Punjab De. Princhest01 (talk) 07:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support
- Agreeing that the word 'activist' in the title is potentially misleading.
- Not sure if this article's subject is the WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, in my opinion, changing the title to Amritpal Singh (separatist) would be more accurate. That being said, even if the title is changed to Amritpal Singh, it would depict the subject of the article better than the current title.
- EnormityOP (talk) 05:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support I don't know whether this person will remain relevant in long term. The short-term popularity he has gained is because of his violent actions and police operation against him. Amritpal Singh (separatist) is a better option as per me.
- Mixmon (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Long term relevance can be subject to future discussions. Today, he is the most Notable Amritpal. >>> Extorc.talk 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- today he notable as "Bhai Amritpal Singh khalsa", that's how we Sikhs address a Sikh preacher. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
- I dont see any reliable sources use this name. Kindly read WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RS, WP:V. >>> Extorc.talk 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- today he notable as "Bhai Amritpal Singh khalsa", that's how we Sikhs address a Sikh preacher. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
- If he's alive then for sure, however, his whereabouts are missing and one of police officer confirm [1] his arrest a fews days back and then change the statement. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
- Long term relevance can be subject to future discussions. Today, he is the most Notable Amritpal. >>> Extorc.talk 10:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Disagree He is an activist of Waris Punjab De and it's leader as well. It is well sourced. The correct title should be Amritpal Singh (activist) → Amritpal Singh (Waris Punjab De) Princhest01 2:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"Radical" label
Are there any relevant guidelines on when it is appropriate to describe a subject as a "radical"? Trying to avoid an edit war. CalicoMo (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the job of wikipedia editors to decide who should be described as radical, hero, god or something else WP:FORUM. Quote whatever he is described as in reliable secondary sources WP:RS. You can't post your own original research here WP:RS . 202.168.84.67 (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no objective parameters to call some a "radical". I can find secondary sources that call him a radical. I can also find secondary sources that don't call him a radical. Who decides? CalicoMo (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- How do you gather that there are no "objective paramters"? If you have sources that contradict that he was radical, please bring them up. Otherwise, this is a hollow argument. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Large percentages of Sikhs support him, so he isn’t radical 2607:FEA8:CA1:2700:F959:9777:17B6:70F2 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not even one percent support him. Your claims are without source/baseless. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- your statement also lacks any sources aswell Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let's look at opinions of some real experts-
- Prof Jagroop Singh Sekhon, a political scientist, says, “We have always had a fringe but it has existed peacefully with the mainstream and performs a function of democracy.” Sekhon points out how most people in the Punjab countryside have not heard of the Khalistan referendum, a brainchild of Gurpatwant Singh Pannu, an American lawyer and founder of Sikhs for Justice (SFJ). “Pannu, who claims to be striving for Khalistan, has no support here in Punjab, he draws it from the diaspora. Which is why the first referendum was held in London and then in Canada.’’
- Prof Manjit Singh from Panjab University says the generation that migrated to the West in the 1980s was quick to attain financial independence but it could never assimilate into the foreign culture. “They wanted to belong, so it led to a mushrooming of gurdwaras, which at times got hijacked by weekend Khalistanis. So, they are always part of some movement or the other related to Punjab. It could be for a stronger Punjab or for a separate Khalistan. It’s here that they find a sense of purpose and identity.’’
- Ashutosh Kumar, a political scientist at Panjab University, says the Punjabis in the state are more pragmatic. “They have suffered the fallout of militancy. Even drugs are its byproduct. That is why you see little support for wannabe ideologues like Amritpal. People don’t want a return to violence.’’
- In his 2021 book Blood for Blood: Fifty Years of the Global Khalistan Project, Canadian journalist Terry Milewski wrote how the Khalistan movement in Canada, the United Kingdom and India has been sustained for decades by Pakistan.
- Source:Amritpal episode again shows lingering support for Khalistani sentiments abroad, as backing at home dries up Mixmon (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- your statement also lacks any sources aswell Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 13:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Actually most Punjabis didn't even know who he is until law enforcement agencies launched an investigation into him. The only people who knew him were his supporters. Smahwk (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not even one percent support him. Your claims are without source/baseless. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 03:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Large percentages of Sikhs support him, so he isn’t radical 2607:FEA8:CA1:2700:F959:9777:17B6:70F2 (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Its not the editors job to examine objective parameters, we append information based on WP:RS, literally every single source cited in this page calls him a radical. Hence, he is a radical. >>> Extorc.talk 09:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- In which case you side with caution and not label him a Radical 31.125.46.248 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- All sources cite as radical and fits in generally agreed definition of radical (holding extreme views like secessionism, bearing arms, creating squad of armed men etc. Plus fugitive from law enforcement agencies).
- Hence the term radical is justified and will be retained CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are just using inflammatory POV. Please define the word radical. Bearing arms and separatism isn't against the law. Princhest01 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is against the law in India. Amritpal Singh has been slapped with National Security Act (meant for extremely dangerous criminals or terror groups) and is a fugitive as of now with whereabouts unknown. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"separatism isn't against the law"
Do you understand what separatism is? >>> Extorc.talk 17:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You are just using inflammatory POV. Please define the word radical. Bearing arms and separatism isn't against the law. Princhest01 (talk) 07:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- How do you gather that there are no "objective paramters"? If you have sources that contradict that he was radical, please bring them up. Otherwise, this is a hollow argument. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is no objective parameters to call some a "radical". I can find secondary sources that call him a radical. I can also find secondary sources that don't call him a radical. Who decides? CalicoMo (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Singh has reportedly been caught, the manhunt is an excuse to shutdown internet and suppress protests
This report by South Asia Index says exclusive sources have informed South Asia Index that Amritpal Singh is already in the custody of Indian Intelligence. He was arrested on the first day of the manhunt, but his detention has not been revealed to the media. Instead, a decoy manhunt is underway to avoid any potential unrest in the region.
Should we include this in the article? Solblaze (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can't verify the reliablity of the source but it seems suspicious. "Editorial staff" got the info from "exclusive sources" Mixmon (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Not a known or authenticated or licensed or credible news establishment or source. Hence can't be included. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:52, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Why then references with unknown sources defining him as radical having links with ISI, who was creating human bomb squads, without evidence are are being included? Princhest01 (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think this source is reliable enough that we can take its exclusive source's word for now. WP:WAIT >>> Extorc.talk 15:19, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Solblaze I support its inclusion. Of course certain users here will be against its inclusion because it goes against their pro-Indian government narrative they are pushing on this article. Sources giving the perspective of the other side are being unduly criticized, questioned, and defamed by certain users whilst sources for the other side are just allowed willy-nilly, it seems. All-in-all, this article needs heavy review over its blatant bias issues by third-parties and uninvolved users who are well-versed in WP rules and guidelines, not ones of a certain ideological bend or affiliation. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- It seems you can't argue ethically without calling other editors biased, pro-government, ideologically affiliated etc. Mixmon (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon Just calling a spade a spade when I see it. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yeah? Nobody can do anything if "narrative of the other side" does not appear in reliable media sources. Citing these fringe websites would be equivalent of citing portals like Opindia or Hindupost. You can't just add any random website to wiki articles. Mixmon (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The South Asia Index has never been cited anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not going to start now, in a highly contentious subject. Moreover, they are just peddling a conspiracy theory with a straight face. It is out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, you think citing the references with unsourced individuals calling Amritpal an ISI agent who was making human bombs without any legitimate evidence is not peddling a conspiracy? Princhest01 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The references are amply given with credible sources of extremely institutionalised and established independent media houses both national and international CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Princhest01 Agreed and having those serious criminal
- allegations in the intro lede of a WP:BLP is a gross violation of WP:BLPCRIME. It needs to be rewritten and moved. Does not belong in the intro lede, it has seemingly been placed there to present an overwhelmingly negative image of the article subject to unknowing Wikipedia readers. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, you think citing the references with unsourced individuals calling Amritpal an ISI agent who was making human bombs without any legitimate evidence is not peddling a conspiracy? Princhest01 (talk) 07:25, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- In that DRN someone mentioned another fringe source - its attcaking other media sources (just like their proponents who are attacking other editors) and quoting some twitter user, no info on who has written this page. I am putting this message because I know this source is coming here for discussion and I am not at all interested in discussing these activist sources. @ThethPunjabi atleast find something which can meet WP:RS Mixmon (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- The South Asia Index has never been cited anywhere on Wikipedia. We are not going to start now, in a highly contentious subject. Moreover, they are just peddling a conspiracy theory with a straight face. It is out. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oh yeah? Nobody can do anything if "narrative of the other side" does not appear in reliable media sources. Citing these fringe websites would be equivalent of citing portals like Opindia or Hindupost. You can't just add any random website to wiki articles. Mixmon (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon Just calling a spade a spade when I see it. ThethPunjabi (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- It seems you can't argue ethically without calling other editors biased, pro-government, ideologically affiliated etc. Mixmon (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
A suggestion from an outsider
Much of this discussion and content disputes on the page seems to revolve around the reliability of various sources. Without getting too far into the weeds, I'd observe that a source may have a bias as a matter of editorial policy, and yet still be reliable for factual news reporting. If the discussion here becomes intractable, bring it to WP:RSN for a more dispassionate assessment. Banks Irk (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Unreliable sources tag removed
@Kautilya3, you removed the reliable sources tag from the reactions section here, and you also removed the "extra judicial killings" sentence. So are we treating this source as a mere WSO statement? That is fine with me if that is the case if we limit the usage to this only. >>> Extorc.talk 09:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- The current version of the article is using CNN article for WSO statement. Mixmon (talk) 09:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Alr. Must've been a confusion. Thanks. >>> Extorc.talk 10:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I did that as per point #3 at WP:PRIMARY. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Section title with "controversies"
I haven't yet caught up whether majority of RS describe these as controversies, but I think the section should be retitled more appropriately or the material should be integrated into other sections WP:CSECTION, also because this is a WP:BLP — DaxServer (t · m · c) 13:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Confirmation of Arrest by police
one of police officer confirm [2] his arrest and then change the statement later to support the state narrative. He's is consider to be transfer to outside punjab. Dilpreet Singh ping 14:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
- A tweet is not a reliable source. Kingly read WP:RS. >>> Extorc.talk 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the tweet rather video in the tweet, I'll post actual news from where it came however since state media has changed their statement to build false narrative it might be deleted like other news. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
- Yes, Videos in a tweet is not a reliable source. Drawing conclusions based on those videos violates WP:OR. It appears as though you haven't actually read a single policy page on this platform. >>> Extorc.talk 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't judge me what I know or not, I said I'll post the news based on the video if it still there. shouldn't you read carefully before commenting? Dilpreet Singh ping 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish ThethPunjabi we need past news which state media deleted, news ran for some time with above video and was then changed. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Deleted or Rescinded Items which have been withdrawn by the issuers don't constitute reference or source.
- (Only presently available reliable references can be used, not photos/videos etc.) CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree with that, show me wiki rule on this, let me hear a scenerio when information is changed and is not stacked rather eliminated. This is a conflict as state's narrative is he's missing and they first confirmed he was arrested. this could lead his extra judicial killing with world will know . Dilpreet Singh ping 16:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- ScottishFinnishRadish ThethPunjabi we need past news which state media deleted, news ran for some time with above video and was then changed. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Don't judge me what I know or not, I said I'll post the news based on the video if it still there. shouldn't you read carefully before commenting? Dilpreet Singh ping 15:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I can help you this time as you made a straightforward demand (except the usual state media jibes). Here - [3][4][5][6]. However I don't know how exactly you will use them Mixmon (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- appreciates this search , since article is protected I can not make a change. here's my suggestion: either under the crack down or a new segment about his arrest should be made to high light how state is playing around his detention. as of now this is a most discussed part on the state media and they keep manipulating. Dilpreet Singh ping 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think a small line can be added in Crackdown section like - "Initially Indian media reported that he was arrested but Punjab police later clarified that he has evaded arrest"
- As mentioned in the updated Wire article - An earlier version of this story said Amritpal Singh was arrested. The Punjab police later clarified that this was not the case. @Extorc @Kautilya3 Mixmon (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be mentioned that the media first reported that he was arrested, and later changed it to evading arrrest after clarification by the Punjab Police. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- with that said, how would you distinguish a propaganda from the reality. First news came saying & confirm he was arrested. then state set up new narrative saying he was elude 80,000 officers , how come that's posibble and even law of court raised issue on this narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- here's a advocate of warris punjab confirming the same [7] Dilpreet Singh ping 17:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- They didnt confirm his arrest. For example India Today article clearly stated -
Punjab Police has so far neither confirmed or denied whether Singh has been apprehended or not.
Mixmon (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Kautilya3 why are you adding the information without discussing, what proof do you have he ran away on motorcycle ? WP:RAA I need more moderators on this article. CC DaxServer ScottishFinnishRadish ThethPunjabi Dilpreet Singh ping 18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- with that said, how would you distinguish a propaganda from the reality. First news came saying & confirm he was arrested. then state set up new narrative saying he was elude 80,000 officers , how come that's posibble and even law of court raised issue on this narrative. Dilpreet Singh ping 17:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- video is from punjab police as well, question become how wiki handle this kind of information, we know that state is running a propaganda, possibly, their intentions are to eliminate him or already done. once you show him he's eluded then it became a target and could be shown latter in a extra judicial killing. Dilpreet Singh ping 17:39, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it can be mentioned that the media first reported that he was arrested, and later changed it to evading arrrest after clarification by the Punjab Police. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- appreciates this search , since article is protected I can not make a change. here's my suggestion: either under the crack down or a new segment about his arrest should be made to high light how state is playing around his detention. as of now this is a most discussed part on the state media and they keep manipulating. Dilpreet Singh ping 16:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, Videos in a tweet is not a reliable source. Drawing conclusions based on those videos violates WP:OR. It appears as though you haven't actually read a single policy page on this platform. >>> Extorc.talk 15:38, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's not the tweet rather video in the tweet, I'll post actual news from where it came however since state media has changed their statement to build false narrative it might be deleted like other news. Dilpreet Singh ping 15:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilpreet Singh (talk • contribs)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023
Whoever has edited or written this wikipedia has tried to defame Bhai Amritpal Singh by telling hiss incomplete education or tried to connect him with ISI or trained by them. The person has no knowledge but I dont know why would google let random people edit the information which is going to effect on global basic. Please do not let any one edit and I urge you to remove the false information provided. It leaves a negative effect on the people worldwide. I will be very thankful for your this act. 24.207.23.154 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. >>> Extorc.talk 05:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Very biased article
Lacks objectivity in tone and framing 2601:645:4300:A290:FABF:676D:FF67:D143 (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It's well referenced and has neutral language CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is extremely biased, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that he was making human bombs. Absolutely laughable, the references are from Indian state-backed news, Hindustan Times. Bearing in mind he is an anti-Indian state entity, in what planet would using state-backed media make it neutral at all. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Just finished expanding the article
Hello, I just finished expanding the article. Feel free to critique, copyedit, and improve upon what I had added. I know we all got a little heated earlier on but I am optimistic we can all still work cooperatively & collaborate together on this article. *Edit* I have to redact the above statement considering the conversation below where immaturity is shining through and certain editors want to continue arguing, belittling, and personally attacking me when I try to extend an olive branch ThethPunjabi (talk) 06:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I also want to note that most of the text in the "Reaction" section has been critical of the authorities during the crackdown, perhaps an editor can add any views by notable people who praised the actions of the authorities as noted in a reliable source to ensure this section is not imbalanced towards one side. ThethPunjabi (talk) 06:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is mostly propaganda and will get eventually deleted. It is a biogaphy page. You are writing nothing about the man, just various random opinions that you happen to like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 I extend an olive branch and this is the reaction I get. Are you accusing me of propaganda and bias? Everything I added is from reliable sources and I also added sentences praising the crackdown and also a sentence of the British foreign secretary criticizing the Sikh protestors. The article has balance issues from the start and so I updated it with reliable sources to balance it so both sides are fairly presented. Substantiate your claim regarding me as I also do not take kindly to being accused of bias unfairly. I also wrote plenty about Amritpal, especially regarding the drug campaigns. Don’t accuse me again without due cause. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The widespread addition of reactions is very WP:UNDUE.
"avoiding giving undue weight means articles should not give minority views...as much of or as detailed a description"
means that adding views of Jagmeet Singh, who RS states is a pro Khalistani anti india canadian mp isn't particularly appropriate. >>> Extorc.talk 07:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- @Extorc Jagmeet Singh is a leader of one of the largest political parties in Canada and is notable enough to be included in the article. Definitely not a “minor” figure. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The widespread addition of reactions is very WP:UNDUE.
- Exactly my observations since yesterday. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 I extend an olive branch and this is the reaction I get. Are you accusing me of propaganda and bias? Everything I added is from reliable sources and I also added sentences praising the crackdown and also a sentence of the British foreign secretary criticizing the Sikh protestors. The article has balance issues from the start and so I updated it with reliable sources to balance it so both sides are fairly presented. Substantiate your claim regarding me as I also do not take kindly to being accused of bias unfairly. I also wrote plenty about Amritpal, especially regarding the drug campaigns. Don’t accuse me again without due cause. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The reactions section is heavily bloated. I have no issues with adding a few reactions but overloading it like this is useless and does nothing to actually talk about the person about whom this page is. Most of this should be trimmed and we should focus on the crackdown instead. >>> Extorc.talk 07:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agreed. Anyone will realise that there are several additions in the article which do not directly or even indirectly concern to Amritpal Singh. Attempts have been made to convert this article into an umbrella article for various indirectly connected issues.
- Needs a lot of cleanup CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is mostly propaganda and will get eventually deleted. It is a biogaphy page. You are writing nothing about the man, just various random opinions that you happen to like. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
If you want to extend an olive branch, try being WP:NPOV. And read, WP:BALANCE to understand what the term means. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 You are the one who is failing to meet both of those policies in your edits to this article. I am the one who has made edits covering both sides. I haven’t seen a single edit of yours that presented the pro-Amritpal side of the story, not even once. So self-reflect before you accuse others. Also, your snarky and belittling tone is not necessary, learn to communicate civilly. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Agree CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I meant I agree with @Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 Also, since you enjoy citing Wikipedia policies, let’s take a look at the WP:BALANCE policy you referred to and quote its contents:
- “Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint.”
- The previous version of the article before my edits was completely lacking presentation of the pro-Amritpal side at all, only a mere single sentence or two about his anti-drug campaigns. Everything I have added since then has been from reliable sources and addresses this obvious gap. I will further add that the balance issues in this article is not only noticed by me but many, many other users as well. So learn to operate in consensus and stop ignoring the concerns of others editors and try to focus on the content, not personally attacking your fellow editors (especially when they try to reconcile differences). Be better. ThethPunjabi (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is still a sentence or two about his anti-drug compaigns. A section header has been added and a citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am talking about prior to my edits. This article had a meagre one or two sentences that presented the subject favourably at all. The rest of it was all negative. Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab, nothing on why he has so much support, nothing on why many are his followers. Rather it was filled with negativity and slander, which in itself is fine but not if it’s completely unbalanced in that direction. Furthermore, the intro lede is terrible in its current state. You have extremely serious allegations from “anonymous sources” of brainwashing and training suicide bombers being taken as fact, this should not even be in the intro lede, it is clearly going to give the wrong impression to readers, it needs to be moved to the controversy section. How does the article meet WP:BLP at all with this in mind? You are supposed to assume every crime the subject is accused of is innocent until proven in court according to that policy. And now you are discussing with others on adding in allegations of sexual misconduct and removing my constructive and well-sourced edits which provided much needed balance, further unbalancing the article. I was one who expanded upon his anti-drug campaign and added the section header, btw. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab" - This is a very generalised statement and I wonder if you have any reliable survey data to back this claim up, support from the "people of Punjab" is very different from diasporic Sikhs or some organizations. Some RS which addresses this - [12][13] Mixmon (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon I already added sources to the article that heavily delve into his popularity amongst the people of Punjab. Look at the VICE article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- "Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab" - This is a very generalised statement and I wonder if you have any reliable survey data to back this claim up, support from the "people of Punjab" is very different from diasporic Sikhs or some organizations. Some RS which addresses this - [12][13] Mixmon (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Kautilya3 @Extorc @CrusaderForTruth2023 You three do realize this article is in clear violation of WP:BLPCRIME when criminal accusations are presented as fact, especially in an intro lede? The sentences about the brainwashing and suicide bomber training needs to be rewritten and moved.
- “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocentuntil convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.”
- So tell me, which court has convicted Amritpal Singh of the crimes the intro
- lede is accusing him of, making accusations that he is engaged in terrorist acts? Also, your proposed inclusion of sexual misconduct/abuse allegations need to be considered in light of this policy. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- We are not passing judgements here. It's clearly written "it has been reported" or "alleged". The language is neutral from third POV. No need of editing is needed. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- “Reported” needs to be changed in to “accused” and those allegations have no business being in the intro lede. WP:BLP further states:
- “Pages that are unsourced and negative in tone, especially when they appear to have been created primarily to disparage the subject, should be deleted at once if there is no policy-compliant version to revert to”
- What purpose does having serious unproven criminal allegations in the intro lede serve other than to present an overwhelmingly negative first impression to unknowing Wikipedia readers? Blatant violation of the policy. Those allegations belong in the “controversy” section. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also by controversy, I realised that the Controversy Section has very cleverly being removed from the main section and concealed a subsection although there is plenty of substance in the Controversy section to exist as an independent section. @Extorc@Kautilya3 CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- For that matter, I think the consensus over the past week has been that the wordings are correct and need no modifications and are supplemented with enough credible references. @Kautilya3@Extorc will agree. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 What consensus? When have the concerns of me and many other editors like @Solblaze , @Dilpreet Singh , @CalicoMo , @CanadianSingh1469 , @Jattlife121 , @Usingh0663 , @Gubeeno123 , and @Princhest01 been considered? All
- of the above users have voiced concerns about the balance of this article yet their concerns have fallen on deaf ears and have been ignored. This is not how consensus operates in the slightest bit.
- According to the WP:CONSENSUS policy page: “Decisions on Wikipedia are primarily made by consensus, which is accepted as the best method to achieve Wikipedia's goals, i.e., the five pillars. Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.”
- When has any effort been made to address or discuss productively many users’ legitimate concerns with the content of this article? I have seen some try to start discussions on this very talk page but they were personally attacked, belittled, argued with, and ignored. This is not a productive, fair, and healthy way to behave here on Wikipedia. Everyone needs to be willing to hear the viewpoints of every editor and consider them fairly, not disregard them and still claim to have consensus. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, you can't change the article also without consensus. It will be reverted. If not, I will revert any changes to any well referenced sentence. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 That equally applies to any of your proposed changes to referenced material to the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I have not tried to changed or alter any of your or anyone else's well referenced credible additions which are relevant to the article. I have not even disputed any of your additions till now. Peace.  CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 That equally applies to any of your proposed changes to referenced material to the article. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- So, you can't change the article also without consensus. It will be reverted. If not, I will revert any changes to any well referenced sentence. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Let us delete everything then. Because for a Criminal Fugitive almost everything will be negatively worded. Don't make nonsense argument. Your sympathy lies with him does not give you the right to whitewash him.
- Till he is caught and bought to court, the negative accusations carry more weight. (For a fugitive on the run is considered guilty prima facie till he surrenders). CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I haven't agreed about that sentence. I haven't studied the sources on that yet. But it is not explained in the body. So that needs to be done first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I think we all can agree on the fact that the wordings are pretty neutral which we have used in the introduction of the article. And they are supplemented by enough references (multiple references for every word or sentence used). Doesn't merit any discussion for change.
- Secondly, for a person on the run from law, the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold in law. A fugitive with a reward on his head is considered a criminal till he surrenders and presents his version to courts. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 You said (quote): “Secondly, for a person on the run from law, the argument of innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold in law. A fugitive with a reward on his head is considered a criminal till he surrenders and presents his version to courts.”
- you do realize this does not matter on Wikipedia, you must follow the rules stated in WP:BLPCRIME, there are no exceptions. You cannot prematurely assume that he is guilty of these crimes before the allegations are proven in court as the policy itself states. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't have time to argue on this. You are free to add your contributions to the article which are relevant to the issue as you have been doing since yesterday, nobody stopped you. If you attempt to unilaterally alter other's contributions which are well referenced, I will revert it. That's my final stance. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The policy is for individuals who are not public figures. Mixmon (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon No, the following sentences of the policy still apply to living public figure articles: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.” The sentences immediately after this are what you are thinking of. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can't manipulate policies to favour yourself. It clearly mentions "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Your claim is the allegations should not be mentioned but that part does not apply to pulic figures. If you're unable to comprehend what's written then I can't help. Mixmon (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon First of all, read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH because you keep making negative assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors without due cause. Also, learn to be civil in your communication. Second of all, I never said the allegations should not be mentioned nor deleted from the article, I simply said that the policy still states that we have to presume innocence for all allegations for public figures, which that policy discusses in the sentences I had quoted earlier. I never made the argument you are now accusing me of. I also have stated that the article is in violation of WP:BLP because two serious criminal allegations are presented in the intro lede of the article which may be cited but the sources do not hold up to scrutiny in the slightest when the source fails to disclose the validity of their claims nor which “anonymous source” they obtained it from. Therefore, it is not a verifiable source and can not be used to support such serious criminal allegations in a biographical article of a living person, especially in the intro lede. Having these allegations in the intro lede also violates WP:BALANCE, as it is written to give a premature, overwhelmingly negative impression for the reader of the person who is the topic of the article. BLP can not be written purely to attack the person, it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
"when the source fails to disclose the validity of their claims nor which “anonymous source” they obtained it from"
This clearly shows you haven't read WP:RS and WP:V. The entire point of having RS is that we can believe these "anonymous sources". If we were to drop all these anonymous sources, Wikipedia will stop functioning overnight. >>> Extorc.talk 13:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon First of all, read WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH because you keep making negative assumptions about the motives of your fellow editors without due cause. Also, learn to be civil in your communication. Second of all, I never said the allegations should not be mentioned nor deleted from the article, I simply said that the policy still states that we have to presume innocence for all allegations for public figures, which that policy discusses in the sentences I had quoted earlier. I never made the argument you are now accusing me of. I also have stated that the article is in violation of WP:BLP because two serious criminal allegations are presented in the intro lede of the article which may be cited but the sources do not hold up to scrutiny in the slightest when the source fails to disclose the validity of their claims nor which “anonymous source” they obtained it from. Therefore, it is not a verifiable source and can not be used to support such serious criminal allegations in a biographical article of a living person, especially in the intro lede. Having these allegations in the intro lede also violates WP:BALANCE, as it is written to give a premature, overwhelmingly negative impression for the reader of the person who is the topic of the article. BLP can not be written purely to attack the person, it is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sir, reading the policy to its end is important, it clearly states that we must only apply this reasoning of the person is not a public figure. You cannot twist policy in your way. >>> Extorc.talk 13:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- You can't manipulate policies to favour yourself. It clearly mentions "For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." Your claim is the allegations should not be mentioned but that part does not apply to pulic figures. If you're unable to comprehend what's written then I can't help. Mixmon (talk) 09:26, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Mixmon No, the following sentences of the policy still apply to living public figure articles: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.” The sentences immediately after this are what you are thinking of. ThethPunjabi (talk) 09:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- At best, I can add more references for the lines or words in the article. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Till the person remains absconding, the overall outlook will be negative. I guess even WP:BALANCE is not applicable. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- No, I haven't agreed about that sentence. I haven't studied the sources on that yet. But it is not explained in the body. So that needs to be done first. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- We are not passing judgements here. It's clearly written "it has been reported" or "alleged". The language is neutral from third POV. No need of editing is needed. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 08:22, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I am talking about prior to my edits. This article had a meagre one or two sentences that presented the subject favourably at all. The rest of it was all negative. Nothing about the reasoning on why he is popular amongst the people of Punjab, nothing on why he has so much support, nothing on why many are his followers. Rather it was filled with negativity and slander, which in itself is fine but not if it’s completely unbalanced in that direction. Furthermore, the intro lede is terrible in its current state. You have extremely serious allegations from “anonymous sources” of brainwashing and training suicide bombers being taken as fact, this should not even be in the intro lede, it is clearly going to give the wrong impression to readers, it needs to be moved to the controversy section. How does the article meet WP:BLP at all with this in mind? You are supposed to assume every crime the subject is accused of is innocent until proven in court according to that policy. And now you are discussing with others on adding in allegations of sexual misconduct and removing my constructive and well-sourced edits which provided much needed balance, further unbalancing the article. I was one who expanded upon his anti-drug campaign and added the section header, btw. ThethPunjabi (talk) 08:09, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- There is still a sentence or two about his anti-drug compaigns. A section header has been added and a citation. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
One-Sided Unsourced References
The information is heavily written with POV. For example, only one sided incredible references- without showing any evidence are being used to character assassinate him and to justify Police brutality. Please provide alternative references as well or edit incredible references loaded with hearsay and fictitious allegations and make it comply with NPOV. PrinChest01 (talk) 3:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (2)
changed activist to separatist Romanizer00 (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit semi-protected}}
template. — DaxServer (t · m · c) 11:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- Please note that a RM disc is going on on this t/p. >>> Extorc.talk 13:41, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2023 (3)
I would like to add another paragraph (text below) to the 'Early Controversies' section. The speech is available in the cited YouTube URL from timestamp 14:47 to 15:13
In another speech, he made xenophobic remarks against Hindus coming from Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jharkhand, and Himachal Pradesh to Punjab. He said, “They come here and worship idols, roam around wearing Janeu (sacred thread worn by Hindus), and sell cigarettes and drugs.” Addressing the crowd present at the event he said, “If you do not want such things to happen in your village, take action.” [1] Pbeditwiki (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, this is WP:UNDUE. Please provide reliable secondary sources that describe his speech as such and discuss about it in detail — DaxServer (t · m · c) 14:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Live Amritpal Singh Khalsa Speech Waris Punjab De Dastarbandi Village Rode". YouTube. Punjabi Radio USA. Retrieved 29 September 2022.
No evidence he was training 'human bomb' squads. Should not be using Indian-state backed media as references.
The evidence used by DNA India and Hindustan Times and various Indian-state backed media is not true. No matter what side you are on, can we all agree that using Indian news media for an anti-Indian activist is not the right way to go if we want a balanced impartial article? The article is locked with this blatant lie from Indian-state backed media; Indian News Media is ranked 133 in the World Press Freedom Index in 2022, slightly above Afghanistan, using them as authentic references for this particular individual is blatantly false.
Should not be using Indian-state backed media as references. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- These are all independent media. The only state owned or backed media in India is DD or PIB. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:31, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello,
- I understand you are Indian yourself so you may have preconceived notions of independence for Indian media, but this is not true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press_in_India
- Sorry to say, but almost all Indian news media is subject to harsh restrictions by the central government. Also, not claiming they are owned by the state, I'm saying that they are espousing state-backed information. In any case, would you not agree that using Indian state-backed media, which is obviously going to be biased towards the unity of India, as references for an Indian separatist is not going to make the article impartial and balanced? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Also, after reading both articles; which is obviously one-sided, they give NO EVIDENCE for these claims as they do not give any reference to any source, they are literally just claiming it in the article. What independent News media can make such bold claims with no evidence? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but since all the items are well referenced, they will not be removed. If you want to dispute the respective websites, there are different pages for that, not here. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, okay since you are claiming they are both 'well referenced', why don't you give me the references these articles used for these claims? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Uproot Tyranny, that is a ridiculous ask. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to ask for references used by a news article for the claims made in a news article? How can anyone trust Indian News media at face value, especially about this particular subject? Go read a BBC article, every claim is referenced to a source. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Uproot Tyranny One article claims the source is “Punjab Police” (okay, we are taking what the opposing side is saying at face value without evidence in a WP:BLP?) and the other claims “[multiple] intelligence agencies based on intelligence input” (yet failed to name a single one or official which provided the info), tells you all you need to know, really. The two sources are not even consistent with each-other, both claiming different sources, which makes them even more suspect. Not a reliable source at all. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Obviously. Wiki Articles are done based on credible established sources generally national and global established media. It immaterial and also impossible to go into the investigation of the source itself. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- It is ridiculous to ask for references used by a news article for the claims made in a news article? How can anyone trust Indian News media at face value, especially about this particular subject? Go read a BBC article, every claim is referenced to a source. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Uproot Tyranny, that is a ridiculous ask. Drmies (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- How are these allegations well-referenced? These are from unsourced individuals and simply hearsay and propaganda. These references are incredible and should be immediately removed. Princhest01 (talk) 15:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Wow, okay since you are claiming they are both 'well referenced', why don't you give me the references these articles used for these claims? Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry but since all the items are well referenced, they will not be removed. If you want to dispute the respective websites, there are different pages for that, not here. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 14:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Uproot Tyranny Indeed, if you read the specific articles cited, these are the claimed sources: “Punjab Police” and “security agencies based on intelligence input” – no evidence whatsoever is presented in the article. Like you mentioned, Indian media is nowhere near the standards of true independent media outlets, such as the ones found in Western countries, and they are all influenced and restricted, sometimes controlled by BJP-allies like Adani, who recently took over one of the last decent and independent media outlets. Claims from the opposing side is accepted as truth in a WP:BLP and certain users here have consistently ignored WP:BALANCE and WP:CONSENSUS when the issue has been brought up many, many times. It is clear that the article has been written and maintained to be a hit-piece to present an overwhelmingly negative image of the topic subject to unknowing readers of Wikipedia, not an honest attempt to present the subject fairly and reliably whilst following Wikipedia rules, procedures; and guidelines. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hi @Uproot Tyranny If you have problem with any source used in this article please start a discussion at WP:RSN. This particular thing has been discussed many times here in the talk page and I am not in favour of repeating it. Mixmon (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Hello Mixmon,
- After glancing through your talk page and seeing how you've attempted to create pages for Far-right Hindu nationalist, Anand Ranganathan and Abhijit Iyer Mitra, I'm not surprised you are trying to subvert the truth about this article. This is a blatant attempt to mischaracterise this individual and must be brought to Admin attention. Uproot Tyranny (talk) 15:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Uproot Tyranny Feel free to open a conflict of interest case regarding the above user at the conflict of interest noticeboard at: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard
- I can provide evidence as well. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The same can be opened for you also. It's better that you stay off this path. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 Feel free to elaborate the justification for your accusation against me, then. Clearly you are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND now. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't want to debate or argue with you anymore. It's a waste of time. I have made my stance very clear on this issue multiple times. Period. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @CrusaderForTruth2023 Feel free to elaborate the justification for your accusation against me, then. Clearly you are in violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND now. ThethPunjabi (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ThethPunjabi Do you understand that in COI/N you would have to prove that the editors you accuse of having a COI are affiliated with a political/religious/financial organization that is opposed to Amritpal?
because WP:COI states Conflict of interest is editing"about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships"
and
WP:COINOTBIAS clearly states that"COI emerges from an editor's roles and relationships"
>>> Extorc.talk 16:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)- @Extorc I’ve already given my case (with evidence in the form of diffs and links) yesterday regarding the COI allegations. ThethPunjabi (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- The same can be opened for you also. It's better that you stay off this path. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Well I'm tired of these personal attack, now Amritpal fans don't even try to understand wiki policies. Do whatever you want you are free to complain at noticeboard of your choice WP:PNBD Mixmon (talk) 15:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, it's tiresome. I have also come to the conclusion that argument is useless. We won't allow any change to the points which are referenced by credible sources. That's it. Rest they are free to go to whichever place they want and keep complaining.
- For me this is becoming a waste of time. CrusaderForTruth2023 (talk) 15:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)